Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

Science blogs

EVENTS

Stedman Eviscerates S.E. Cupp

There are few people who irritate me the way S.E. Cupp does and I found her recent comments about how conservative atheists are so much better than liberal ones to be among her most obnoxious and idiotic yet. Chris Stedman pretty much eviscerates her ridiculous claims on the website of the cable network that employs her to make them. On her claim that atheists are not politically disenfranchised:

For instance, a 2014 Pew Research study found that Americans are less likely to vote for an atheist presidential candidate than any other survey category—even if they share that candidate’s political views.

Faring better than atheists: candidates who have engaged in extramarital affairs and those with zero political experience.

And unless she recently had a change of heart, Cupp herself falls in line with the majority of Americans. In 2012 she said, “I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever.”

While atheists are making political inroads, we’re also still on the margins in a number of ways. Cupp concludes the clip by saying, “I think our atheists are better than yours.”

Apparently they’re still not good enough to be president.

Bingo. You can’t claim that atheists are not politically disadvantaged when you’re one of the people actively trying to disadvantage them, despite your (false?) claim to be one of us. On her claim that conservatism is “far more…respectful of atheism than liberalism has been.”

Again, Pew’s surveys suggest otherwise.

While the number of people who say they wouldn’t vote for an atheist candidate sits at 70% among Republicans, that number drops to 42% among Democrats. (“Progressive,” “liberal,” and “Democrat” certainly aren’t synonyms, but there is overlap.)

Earlier this year, the group American Atheists announced plans to sponsor a table at CPAC, the country’s largest annual gathering of conservatives. But within hours, after a number of conservatives spoke out against their inclusion, they were promptly uninvited.

Many of the most prominent anti-atheist voices—including Sarah Palin, Erick Erickson, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich—are conservative politicians and commentators, and I have yet to hear many other conservatives (Cupp included) condemn their anti-atheist remarks.

Comments

Although I can respect and admire someone who, in response to a question about religious beliefs, admits to being an atheist. But I would love even more politicians who would answer that their religious beliefs aren’t really anyone else’s business and not relevant to the office.

Conservatives are more tolerant of you Athiests than Liberals are. When we find out you’re an Athiest, we’ll even open the door for you when we kick you out!

steve84“She is probably a crypto-Christian and just waiting for the right time to officially convert and get massive publicity.”
I prefer the Positive Feedback Loop Hypothesis. When she says “A”, people pat her on the head and give her a paycheck. When she says “B”, nothing happens, or worse, MSNBC gives her a gig. So she says “A” again.

S.E. Cupp is hilarious: “I really wish I could Believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But, I just can’t.
Why, just last week the ladies in my Bible study class were comforting me and they just said I should just keep praying on it. So, I am just going to keep praying to Jesus and hope that the Good Lord lets me believe in him. Ever since I gave my life to Christ, I have always given all my problems to him and I am sure he will solve this one too.”

And Dave Silverman of American Atheists wants to bring more conservatives into the movement … why?

More donors for his organization. That, and the notion that there is strength in numbers, even though you’re numbers have been just increased with some of the most despicable people in America. You hear the same bullshit from the MRAs when they whine about the DEEEEEEEEEP RIIIIIIIFFFFTS; to face the religionist hordes we need to be as big and undivided as possible, that means we let every misogynist, capitalist, racist pile of shit who doesn’t believe in a deity into the ranks while telling those who object to shut up.

…and add that it’s unConstitutional to even suggest that religion should be a part of the discussion. “No religious test” means “no religious test”.

Sorry, but the Constitution bars statutory religious tests like those that existed in England at the time. And that pesky First Amendment thingy makes barring people from bringing up the subject a bit difficult, especially in a political context, no matter how irrelevant it is.